Questions related to the Armenian Church

[Edial]

Perhaps what troubles [western] people with the idea [of theosis] is the fact that they do not differentiate between God's essence, which is always beyond any created being, and His energies, which we can experience and is what makes us God like by grace. Also Edial said somewhere that God is the name we give to His being (essence), which is not quite correct. God's essence is beyond names. What we call God, in English at least, is a representative energy (manifestation) of His, namely Goodness (though the term is used loosely to label His essence too). Ultimately though - speaking of His essence - God is not a being.
God is not a being?
Being is an essence, personality, existance. Personality and existance (among other things) make the essence a Being.
God is a being, since he exists in all dimansions.

God is NOT an energy (it implies impersonal characteristics), but a personality.

Thanks,
Ed

[Monica, child of God]

Why did anything had to go wrong?

Does it look like I am upset at the developments in my life?

What I meant by "what went wrong" was why it seems that you and your family did not receive a basic Orthodox catechesis. And why today you seems to have very little knowledge of Orthodox faith and doctrine.

As for the path you life has taken, that is for God to judge, certainly not me.

M.

[nutroll]

God is not a being?
Being is an essence, personality, existance. Personality and existance (among other things) make the essence a Being.
God is a being, since he exists in all dimansions.

God is NOT an energy (it implies impersonal characteristics), but a personality.


This again goes back to one of the fundamental problems in this thread. We have completely different vocabulary that mask the similarities that exist and magnify the differences. When we speak of God, we speak of essence and energies. You are correct in saying that God is not an energy with impersonal characteristics. However, God in his essence is beyond human comprehension. However His energies are those 'things' which can be experienced, known, and understood. Mind you, 'energies' is not a physics term, it is not an impersonal term in Orthodoxy. In fact, it is an extremely personal term. It is what we experience of God. What we are saying then is that there is more to God than just what is experienced i.e. God's essence. As to whether or not God is a being, I think the point there is that God is not a being in the sense that you and I are beings. 'Being' is an inexact term for God who is uncreated and exists beyond our capacity to understand. I don't want to see you formulating ideas about the Orthodox Church based on definitions that we don't use.

[Monica, child of God]

Edial,
Are you familiar with the apophatic approach to theology that the Orthodox normally employ?

M.

[Edial]

This again goes back to one of the fundamental problems in this thread. We have completely different vocabulary that mask the similarities that exist and magnify the differences. When we speak of God, we speak of essence and energies. You are correct in saying that God is not an energy with impersonal characteristics. However, God in his essence is beyond human comprehension. However His energies are those 'things' which can be experienced, known, and understood. Mind you, 'energies' is not a physics term, it is not an impersonal term in Orthodoxy. In fact, it is an extremely personal term. It is what we experience of God. What we are saying then is that there is more to God than just what is experienced i.e. God's essence. As to whether or not God is a being, I think the point there is that God is not a being in the sense that you and I are beings. 'Being' is an inexact term for God who is uncreated and exists beyond our capacity to understand. I don't want to see you formulating ideas about the Orthodox Church based on definitions that we don't use.
Being does not need to be created. Being exists and is alive. This much we can understand although cannot grasp the magnitude of it.

[choirfiend]

Existance itself is a limitation. Apophatic all the way.

[ThePilgrim]

My only experience with economy is being received into the Church by Holy Chrismation. I think I will go with the stock answer.
That's not necessarily ekonomia. It is in accordance with the canons.

[nutroll]

Being does not need to be created. Being exists and is alive. This much we can understand although cannot grasp the magnitude of it.
then use the word being if it helps you comprehend what we are saying. The point is that over 2000 years, the Orthodox Church has formulated ways of expressing certain theological principles which are very difficult to express. They rely on certain vocabulary that has a very specific meaning to Orthodox Christians. When we speak of something like essence or energies, it is not like a word in a dictionary that has a 1., 2., and 3., definition. It has a precise definition without which you won't properly understand the priniciples based on it. Learn those definitions and I am confident that 90% of this discussion would simply vanish.

[Edial]

I am looking for an answer to two points.

These were my posts above.

To define an Orthodoxy certain things count.
What counts to YOU?

If Baptism does not bear weight, according to some, even if it is performed by an Archbishop, what counts to you?

Learning of Orthodox theology? Authority of the Chutch? Knowledge of the Bible? Jesus Christ?

According to many here it is the UNDERSTANDING of Orthodox theology.
Is it?

Thanks,
Ed

[ThePilgrim]

I am looking for an answer to two points.

These were my posts above.

To define an Orthodoxy certain things count.
What counts to YOU?

If Baptism does not bear weight, according to some, even if it is performed by an Archbishop, what counts to you?

Learning of Orthodox theology? Authority of the Chutch? Knowledge of the Bible? Jesus Christ?

According to many here it is the UNDERSTANDING of Orthodox theology.
Is it?

Thanks,
Ed
I'm confused... What do you think is the difference between being baptized by an Archbishop and being baptized by a parish priest? You keep bringing up that you were baptized by an Archbishop as if somehow makes a difference, but I'm not sure why?

In any case, as has been said before, you were never Eastern Orthodox. You were Oriental Orthodox.

Grace and peace,
John

[HandmaidenOfGod]

Regarding economia: what if a Priest gives a flatly wrong economia? For instance: "Go ahead, Elton, if it feels good, do it!"

That's not how economia works. Economia is not designed to "allow" a person to sin, but rather take into account their personal circumstances and to do all that is possible to keep them in communion with the Church. For example, I am allergic to legumes and I am hypoglycemic. So since I need protein in my diet and I can't get it from beans, during Lent my SF has allowed me to eat dairy.

Also, don't forget that our Spiritual Father's/Priests will be held accountable for their actions (as we all will) at the last dread judgment seat of Christ. As far as accountability here on earth, if a person felt that their SF was misdirecting them, that person would be wise to speak to their local Bishop.

Hope this helps...

Maureen

[kamikat]

To define an Orthodoxy certain things count.
What counts to YOU?

If Baptism does not bear weight, according to some, even if it is performed by an Archbishop, what counts to you?

Learning of Orthodox theology? Authority of the Chutch? Knowledge of the Bible? Jesus Christ?

According to many here it is the UNDERSTANDING of Orthodox theology.
Is it?

Thanks,
Ed

We've explained this before. Baptism means nothing if you're parents (or other family) did not pass on to you an understanding of the faith. If, as a child, you went up for communion, but nobody explained to you that it is truly the body and blood of Christ, then you were not aware of what you were doing.
I think one can define an Orthodox Christian as someone who was baptized, chrismated, has a basic understanding of the nature of Christ, the atonement, sacraments(mysteries), and practices of the Church and regularly attends church services, partakes of communion with complete knowledge of the Body and Blood of Christ, has love in their heart for God and Christ. Yes, knowledge of Orthodox theology is needed. (oh, and before anyone claims this is too much to ask, my 7 year old is learning all this stuff in Sunday school) Do you think someone can call themselves a Lutheran if they got baptized, but never learned the Confessions of the Lutheran church, never went to bible study, only went to church on Christmas and Easter?
kamikat

[Edial]

Another question.

Since it was presented that the EO is quite different from the Armenian Orthodox Apostolic Church, what is your point of reference concerning the autheticity of teachings in EO. Antiquity?

Armenian Orthodox Church is the most anscient church 301AD.
It teaches that there is an Original sin in a context of a human nature.
Example - "According to the teaching of the Armenian Church, at the time of the Annunciation when the Holy Spirit entered her she was cleansed of all sin (original sin) as she was to be the vessel in which God manifest was to be incarnated."

http://www.armenianchurch.org/worship/mary/

So, what is the point of reference concerning the authenticity of the EO teachings in that area, since it differs from a more anscient teachings of the Christendom?

Thanks,
Ed

[ThePilgrim]

Another question.

Since it was presented that the EO is quite different from the Armenian Orthodox Apostolic Church, what is your point of reference concerning the autheticity of teachings in EO. Antiquity?

Armenian Orthodox Church is the most anscient church 301AD.
It teaches that there is an Original sin in a context of a human nature.
Example - "According to the teaching of the Armenian Church, at the time of the Annunciation when the Holy Spirit entered her she was cleansed of all sin (original sin) as she was to be the vessel in which God manifest was to be incarnated."

http://www.armenianchurch.org/worship/mary/

So, what is the point of reference concerning the authenticity of the EO teachings in that area, since it differs from a more anscient teachings of the Christendom?

Thanks,
Ed
The Armenian Church isn't the most ancient Church. It was the first *country* to adopt Christianity as its official religion. There is a difference.

[gzt]

If you would like a fuller explanation of what the Orthodox Church teaches about itself, I recommend you peruse the relevant sections of this: http://oca.org/OCorthfaith.asp?SID=2 As much as I dislike to push literature off on people, it seems that with the sort of questions you insist on asking, the few pages of relevant material in that book will help us all get to the bottom of your inquiry as fast as possible.

[nutroll]

Armenian Orthodoxy is the oldest state church, not the oldest church. They differ from the oldest church which is the EO. There are I'm sure a great deal of similarities, but there are of course differences like in Original Sin apparently. However, I do want to go back and point out that Baptism does matter. It is essential for our salvation, but it is like a foundation for a house. Just because you have a foundation, doesn't mean you have a house. You just have something upon which you can build. The point that everyone here was trying to make, and I think successfully made, is that it does not matter at whose hands the baptism takes place. The fact that your uncle was an archbishop has no bearing on the validity or efficacy of your baptism.

[Monica, child of God]

The oldest Christian church would have to be the Orthodox Church Jerusalem Patriarchate, right?

Suddenly there came from heaven a sound like the rushing of a violent wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. And there appeared to them tongues like flames of fire, divided among them and resting on each one. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit. (Acts2:2-4).

So the history of the Christian Church begins, with the descent of the Holy Spirit on the Apostles at Jerusalem during the feast of Pentecost, the first Whit Sunday. On that same day through the preaching of Saint Peter three thousand men and women were baptized, and the first Christian community at Jerusalem was formed. --The Orthodox Church, Bishop Kallistos (Ware)

M.

[HandmaidenOfGod]

Actually if you were to read the history of the Church, the Church was one until the 4th Century when the Non-Chalcedonians (this includes the Armenian Orthodox) broke off from the rest of Christendom. It's not that the Armenian Church is older than the Eastern Orthodox Church, Armenia was just the first country to accept Christianity as a state religion.

You can read more on the history of Christianity and the Orthodox Church here (http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/history_timothy_ware_1.htm#n2).

[HandmaidenOfGod]

An Eastern Orthodox Perspective on St. Augustine and Original Sin (http://www.oca.org/QA.asp?ID=4&SID=3)

[choirfiend]

That link may be insufficient to define the Armenian's definition of original sin. Some Orthodox (EO or OO) resources make use of the English term "original sin." However, in using this term, they do not mean an inherited guilt of sin or even that human nature is now inherently sinful.

That said, who knows what the Armenians believe, being separated from the Church since Chalcedon (if I am not mistaken, they have a separate status from even the OO, not being in full communion with them, either.) They may have adopted Blessed Augustine's ruminations on Original Sin, which the rest of the West did, and which Orthodoxy has never accepted, seeing as how it was a 4th century development that is incompatible with the earlier Christian witness of the rest of the Church and all the Church fathers.

The realization that Orthodox may use the same terminology and mean completely different things by it is important, as someone has pointed out.

What makes someone Orthodox? Living a life in the Church. What separates someone from the Church and makes them no longer Orthodox in a formal way, outside of accepting false doctrines? Accepting sacraments from a non-Orthodox Church, placing one in communion with them and out of communion with the Orthodox Church.

[Edial]

The Armenian Church isn't the most ancient Church. It was the first *country* to adopt Christianity as its official religion. There is a difference.
So, 301AD is not a reliable reference for antiquity?
It does have Church Fathers backing the Original Sin doctrine.

[Edial]

Armenian Orthodoxy is the oldest state church, not the oldest church. They differ from the oldest church which is the EO. There are I'm sure a great deal of similarities, but there are of course differences like in Original Sin apparently. However, I do want to go back and point out that Baptism does matter. It is essential for our salvation, but it is like a foundation for a house. Just because you have a foundation, doesn't mean you have a house. You just have something upon which you can build. The point that everyone here was trying to make, and I think successfully made, is that it does not matter at whose hands the baptism takes place. The fact that your uncle was an archbishop has no bearing on the validity or efficacy of your baptism.
So, I'm trying to compile what is important in the EO mind concerning a validity of a doctrinal teaching.
Why is it true?
We have baptism, teachings, antiquity, Church Fathers, what else?

[nutroll]

I'm afraid I don't understand either of the last two questions you asked.

[Edial]

The oldest Christian church would have to be the Orthodox Church Jerusalem Patriarchate, right?

Suddenly there came from heaven a sound like the rushing of a violent wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. And there appeared to them tongues like flames of fire, divided among them and resting on each one. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit. (Acts2:2-4).

So the history of the Christian Church begins, with the descent of the Holy Spirit on the Apostles at Jerusalem during the feast of Pentecost, the first Whit Sunday. On that same day through the preaching of Saint Peter three thousand men and women were baptized, and the first Christian community at Jerusalem was formed. --The Orthodox Church, Bishop Kallistos (Ware)

M.
Well. Armenian Orthodox Apostolic Church came directly from Apostle Bartholomew. He was there.

[nutroll]

And the two churches were united until the Armenian Church changed. Therefore, the Armenian Church cannot trace itself back unchanged to the apostles.

[Edial]

Actually if you were to read the history of the Church, the Church was one until the 4th Century when the Non-Chalcedonians (this includes the Armenian Orthodox) broke off from the rest of Christendom. It's not that the Armenian Church is older than the Eastern Orthodox Church, Armenia was just the first country to accept Christianity as a state religion.

You can read more on the history of Christianity and the Orthodox Church here (http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/history_timothy_ware_1.htm#n2).
It became the first Christian state at 301AD.

But it came to be from the Apostle Bartholomew when he came to Ararat with the gospel.
He was in the Acts. The continuity is genuine and as anscient yet more formed, since it became unified by a state religion.

[Monica, child of God]

Well. Armenian Orthodox Apostolic Church came directly from Apostle Bartholomew. He was there.

I did not post that to imply that the Armenian Church does not have roots in the ancient Church. You were asserting that the Armenian Orthodox Church was older than the Orthodox Church and that just isn't true.

So, I'm trying to compile what is important in the EO mind concerning a validity of a doctrinal teaching.
Why is it true?
We have baptism, teachings, antiquity, Church Fathers, what else?

The Orthodox Church is conciliar. This goes to our understanding of the word catholic-- kata holos-- "according to the whole." The infallible doctrine of the Church is expressed, in part, at councils where bishops of the various local churches are lead by the Holy Spirit.* Bishops not represented at such councils would read the pronouncements later and give their assent. The Armenian Church was not represented at the 4th Ecumenical Council and later rejected its decrees. This action separated the Armenian Church from the Orthodox Church.

IIRC you are Lutheran, right? I believe that the Lutheran Church accepts the doctrines affirmed at the 4th ecumenical council concerning the natures of Christ, correct?

M.

*see Acts 15:6-30: "It seemed right to the Holy Spirit and to us..."

[Philip]

It does have Church Fathers backing the Original Sin doctrine.

Do you have proof of this claim?

[Vedant]

Another question.

Since it was presented that the EO is quite different from the Armenian Orthodox Apostolic Church, what is your point of reference concerning the autheticity of teachings in EO. Antiquity?

Armenian Orthodox Church is the most anscient church 301AD.
It teaches that there is an Original sin in a context of a human nature.
Example - "According to the teaching of the Armenian Church, at the time of the Annunciation when the Holy Spirit entered her she was cleansed of all sin (original sin) as she was to be the vessel in which God manifest was to be incarnated."

http://www.armenianchurch.org/worship/mary/

So, what is the point of reference concerning the authenticity of the EO teachings in that area, since it differs from a more anscient teachings of the Christendom?

Thanks,
Ed

The church of Jerusalem is the most ancient church. It was founded at Pentacost.

[Edial]

That link may be insufficient to define the Armenian's definition of original sin. Some Orthodox (EO or OO) resources make use of the English term "original sin." However, in using this term, they do not mean an inherited guilt of sin or even that human nature is now inherently sinful.

That said, who knows what the Armenians believe, being separated from the Church since Chalcedon (if I am not mistaken, they have a separate status from even the OO, not being in full communion with them, either.) They may have adopted Blessed Augustine's ruminations on Original Sin, which the rest of the West did, and which Orthodoxy has never accepted, seeing as how it was a 4th century development that is incompatible with the earlier Christian witness of the rest of the Church and all the Church fathers.

The realization that Orthodox may use the same terminology and mean completely different things by it is important, as someone has pointed out.

What makes someone Orthodox? Living a life in the Church. What separates someone from the Church and makes them no longer Orthodox in a formal way, outside of accepting false doctrines? Accepting sacraments from a non-Orthodox Church, placing one in communion with them and out of communion with the Orthodox Church.
So, the Armenians are not Orthodox enough for you. :)

How about Apostolic? :)

[nutroll]

We know who Saint Bartholomew is, we know what he did. That is not at issue. We also know that Armenia was the first nation to have Christianity as its state religion. This has no bearing on whether it is the uncorrupted religion given to the Apostles. They would say yes. We say no because they changed the faith. Besides which, if it is the faith of the Apostles, why exactly are you a Lutheran? That makes absolutely no sense.

[Edial]

I'm afraid I don't understand either of the last two questions you asked.
I wanted to know what makes the teachings of the EO church in the mind of the EO congregant authoritative and true.

I listed some elements. Antiquity, church fathers, and so on.

[Edial]

And the two churches were united until the Armenian Church changed. Therefore, the Armenian Church cannot trace itself back unchanged to the apostles.
:) :D . It does. Bartholomew.

[nutroll]

The Holy Spirit. We believe that the Holy Spirit which descended on the Apostles at Pentecost has guided the church from its inception. The church then maintains continuity through ordination by the laying on of hands. Also we believe that when the Universal Church gathers together as a whole in council that the Holy Spirit guides them to express the truth.

[Monica, child of God]

See post #229.

M.

[nutroll]

What part of the word "unchanged" don't you get, the 'un' or 'changed'?

[Philip]

I wanted to know what makes the teachings of the EO church in the mind of the EO congregant authoritative and true.


The simple fact that they are teachings of the Church make them authoritative and true.

[Edial]

We know who Saint Bartholomew is, we know what he did. That is not at issue. We also know that Armenia was the first nation to have Christianity as its state religion. This has no bearing on whether it is the uncorrupted religion given to the Apostles. They would say yes. We say no because they changed the faith. Besides which, if it is the faith of the Apostles, why exactly are you a Lutheran? That makes absolutely no sense.
I am a believer in Jesus Christ. That should make sense.

Armenians changed the faith? Really? :D :) .
It is the most anscient Christian nation in the world with an established Christian state which traces back from Bartholomew.

It's teachings are as ancient as they are.

Currently I am trying to establish what makes the EO click.
Apparently it is not antiquity (Armenians are going back to the Acts) and differ with EO.

It cannot be church fathers. Armenians are also relying on Church Fathers for the definition of an Original Sin.

Thanks,
Ed

[nutroll]

By your logic, there never was a true church of Christ until Martin Luther came along.

[Philip]

I am a believer in Jesus Christ. That should make sense.

Does this mean that the Aminian Church is not?


Armenians changed the faith? Really? :D :) .

What do you think? Do you think they believe exactly the same thing St Bartholomew taught them? If so, why did you leave that church. If not, why do you ask such a question?


It is the most anscient Christian nation in the world with an established Christian state which traces back from Bartholomew.

None of this establishes that they did not change the faith. Rome was established before the Church in Armenia. It can be traced back to St Paul. Do you think this kept them from changing the faith?


It's teachings are as ancient as they are.

Presuming they haven't changed. Of course this leads us back to the questions: Do you think they believe exactly the same thing St Bartholomew taught them? If so, why did you leave that church. If not, why do you ask such a question?



It cannot be church fathers. Armenians are also relying on Church Fathers for the definition of an Original Sin.


Proof?

[The Prokeimenon!]

Can we move the debate about Armenian Orthodox to the "Voice in the Desert" where it belongs and try to answer questions about ORTHODOXY on TAW?

Rdr Moses

[Monica, child of God]

I'd hate for them to be plagued with this nonsense.

M.

[Edial]

The simple fact that they are teachings of the Church make them authoritative and true.
OK. Teachings of an EO church. OK.

My questions is and I am trying to narrow it down, what makes the teachings of the EO church more authoritative then teachings of other Churches?

We know it is not an antiquity, or the reputation, or the succession. What is it? And how is it different from that of other churches?

Thanks,
Ed

[nutroll]

You don't really pay attention to what we are writing do you?

[Edial]

Does this mean that the Aminian Church is not?
:). The question was Why am I a Lutheran, since the Armenian Church is the Church of the Apostles.
I said that I am a Lutheran because I am a Christian by faith.
Not you ask if the Armenian church is not, since I left it.

What do you think? Do you think they believe exactly the same thing St Bartholomew taught them? If so, why did you leave that church. If not, why do you ask such a question?
:) :D .
Apostolic Church is what the Apostles taught - the Bible.

We know exactly what Bartholomew taught. :)

I left because I became born-again.

None of this establishes that they did not change the faith. Rome was established before the Church in Armenia. It can be traced back to St Paul. Do you think this kept them from changing the faith?
Rome? As a state it was established some 70 years afterwards.
As a church they claim to be traced to Paul, although they chose Peter, althought Peter was never in Rome.

They do change and claim.

Armenians claim that they never changed -
Origins of Christianity
John 1:1

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
The Armenian Church is one of the original ancient Churches and during the entire history of Christianity has remained a part of the "One, Holy, Universal and Apostolic Church" of Christ. Since the Armenian Church arose from underground to become the first state to officially adopt Christianity in 301 A.D., Armenia and her faith have been inseparable. In this section, the basic information regarding the origins of Christianity will be discussed.
We will explore the beginnings of the Universal Church as well as the creation of the autocephalous Armenian Church, her structure and her progression through time. Our history is rich with visionaries and leaders, and we will provide you with information on the Catholicoi, the "Inheritors of St. Gregory" who have shaped the Armenian Church throughout history. The Armenian Church has survived many turbulent times throughout her history, as she suffered one with the nation during times of distress. Out of necessity, the Catholicosate of All Armenians has moved to different locations before returning to Mother See of Etchmiadzin, and these historical sites are detailed. Significant dates in the history of Christianity and those specific to the Armenian Church are listed on a historical time line through the present day. Finally, the Armenian Church as she lives today will be illustrated.
Knowing our history tells much about who we are, and unveils the direction that we must take. Volumes of information have been recorded on this subject, and these origins continue to be discussed and researched, even today. Treasures of the past constantly reveal themselves to the world, and as new information is discovered, this section will be appropriately updated.




Presuming they haven't changed. Of course this leads us back to the questions: Do you think they believe exactly the same thing St Bartholomew taught them? If so, why did you leave that church. If not, why do you ask such a question?
I left because I became born-again.

I also find Scriptures very attractive and Lutheranism a fine bridge between the 2.

Proof??
Of church fathers that believe in original sin?
Augustine. 300-400 AD was a very good time to develop theology, since the Bibles was assembled about then.

Earliest Church Fathers were prone to making mistakes since they did not have Scriptures, just an oral tradition.

With time, things cleared out.

Currently, we have many manuscripts to compile the Bible that was accepted as canonical.

Thanks,
Ed

[Edial]

The Holy Spirit. We believe that the Holy Spirit which descended on the Apostles at Pentecost has guided the church from its inception. The church then maintains continuity through ordination by the laying on of hands. Also we believe that when the Universal Church gathers together as a whole in council that the Holy Spirit guides them to express the truth.
OK. Thanks.

Do you believe the Holy Spirit is upon the Armenian Church, since it was also from the beginning.

Thanks,
Ed

[Edial]

What part of the word "unchanged" don't you get, the 'un' or 'changed'? I get both.
But how do you know that? And how do you know that others that claim the same thing are not?

[Edial]

By your logic, there never was a true church of Christ until Martin Luther came along.
No. Martin Luther was just a Christian who saw an inconsistency in a church.
He never corrected the Church completely, since only God knows the complete definition and function and maintenance of the church.
Lutheranism is not a perfect church. :)

[Edial]

Can we move the debate about Armenian Orthodox to the "Voice in the Desert" where it belongs and try to answer questions about ORTHODOXY on TAW?

Rdr Moses
These are questions about Orthodoxy.
I am presenting a Church that is as anscient and reputable and apostolic as any.
My question is what makes the EO claim that they are correct in all doctrines and others are not.
What makes them believe that they are absolutely correct and others are not.

[icxn]

All we know is that when the Armenians tried to receive the Holy Light, God did not approve and despite their desperate efforts the Light rested on the Orthodox, as always.

[Philip]

Of church fathers that believe in original sin?
Augustine. 300-400 AD was a very good time to develop theology, since the Bibles was assembled about then.

Blessed Augustine is one man. The fact that he taught Original Sin does not make it the concensus of the Fathers. Further, his teachings go against the Fathers and their understanding of the Scriptures. Augustine was greatly influenced by his Platonic education and previous time as a follower of the gnostic Mani. He allowed these, not the teachings of the Fathers, to influence him in this doctrine of Original Sin.

As for the rest of the Fathers, can you offer a list of citations such as I did for theosis?


Earliest Church Fathers were prone to making mistakes since they did not have Scriptures, just an oral tradition.

Your joking, right? All of the Fathers quoted heavily from the Scriptures. The Scriptures were not assembled into a single book, but the Fathers had them.

Currently, we have many manuscripts to compile the Bible that was accepted as canonical.


Do you use the same canon Augustine did?

[nutroll]

OK. Thanks.

Do you believe the Holy Spirit is upon the Armenian Church, since it was also from the beginning.



I do believe that the Holy Spirit is in the Armenian Church because I believe that the Holy Spirit is in all Christians. However, I believe that as a church, the Armenians turned away from the guidance of the Holy Spirit by changing from the faith of the Apostles. Can I prove this? No. But that is why it is a belief.

[nutroll]

I get both.
But how do you know that? And how do you know that others that claim the same thing are not?

i don't know that. I believe that. I think history bears out my belief, but ultimately I believe.

[Edial]

You don't really pay attention to what we are writing do you?
I am. I'm trying to. I really am.

[nutroll]

I don't want to be overly antagonistic. It just seems like you say what you think we believe, we correct it to reflect what we really believe, and the next post you are back to repeating what you think we believe. When everything you say is predicated on misconstruing our beliefs, a discussion can't go anywhere.

[Edial]

All we know is that when the Armenians tried to receive the Holy Light, God did not approve and despite their desperate efforts the Light rested on the Orthodox, as always.
:D . Is that what they teach you?

[Edial]

I don't want to be overly antagonistic. It just seems like you say what you think we believe, we correct it to reflect what we really believe, and the next post you are back to repeating what you think we believe. When everything you say is predicated on misconstruing our beliefs, a discussion can't go anywhere.
You mean concerning the antiquity of the Armanian Church? Or the Apostleship?

I disagree factually, not based on faith.
You might think that they are this or that or have changed here and there, I present the basic facts that it is Anscient, it is Apostolic, it claims to be unchanged.

I am looking further for understanding what makes anyone make claim of being the true one.

[Edial]

I do believe that the Holy Spirit is in the Armenian Church because I believe that the Holy Spirit is in all Christians. However, I believe that as a church, the Armenians turned away from the guidance of the Holy Spirit by changing from the faith of the Apostles. Can I prove this? No. But that is why it is a belief.
But isn't Christian faith based on evidence?
What is the evidence outside of a personal belief?
And if there is not one, night that belief be incorrect, since all are Christians.

[nutroll]

No I am referring to the entire thread. You have constantly misconstrued what we have said on any number of issues (theosis, baptism, authenticity of the Armenian Church, etc. etc. etc.), and you always come back with the same questions. As far as we are concerned, the Armenian Church's claims to be the unchanged apostolic faith are wrong. End of story. They can feel free to feel the same about us. And they do. We don't claim that there is no truth outside of the Orthodox Church, only that there is a fulness of truth within the Orthodox Church. No one here, including you, can be absolutely certain what the church was like in the early days. But based on the evidence, we believe that we are correct.

[nutroll]

But isn't Christian faith based on evidence?
What is the evidence outside of a personal belief?
And if there is not one, night that belief be incorrect, since all are Christians.

I can't give you the evidence as I am not an historian. I have read about the history of the church, and as I understand it, the change was not made by the EO. That does not mean the evidence does not exist, and someone can no doubt point you to the information. And I acknowledge that I may be completely wrong in my beliefs about any number of things. But that is true of every person on this planet. There is no one that can prove their faith, or they would just call it knowledge. At some point one just believes.

[Edial]

No I am referring to the entire thread. You have constantly misconstrued what we have said on any number of issues (theosis, baptism, authenticity of the Armenian Church, etc. etc. etc.), and you always come back with the same questions. As far as we are concerned, the Armenian Church's claims to be the unchanged apostolic faith are wrong. End of story. They can feel free to feel the same about us. And they do. We don't claim that there is no truth outside of the Orthodox Church, only that there is a fulness of truth within the Orthodox Church. No one here, including you, can be absolutely certain what the church was like in the early days. But based on the evidence, we believe that we are correct.
I am presenting that the Armenian Church qualifies to be the true church that is unchanged. You are saying not.
We cannot prove either point.
The question is what makes one think that? Belief? Belief in what? What you hear, believe, understand?
I certainly cannot see the objective elements that can convince one objectively.

Then you are saying it is a subjective belief? OK.
Then what makes one believe subjectively? Holy Spirit? Cannot be. You presented that the Armenian CHurch also has the Holy Spirit and He cannot tell one thing and then another.
Could that be pride? Might be. Armenians are very proud although they claim humility (personal observation).

What makes one believ that EO is the true church?
It is not the Holy Spirit, you understand that. Since Armnenians have the same Spirit and have a different opinion.

Thanks,
Ed

[Akathist]

Closed.

Please note, this is a thread split out from another thread as it was off topic to the OP of that thread.

It is closed for staff review of whether staff feel the thread is appropriate to TAW, and/or if staff feel as a whole that the rule about an nonEO debating in TAW.